On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:17:22 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:36:22 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:57:36 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Now about those magazines. Is it the law to sell magazines with ID?

The guys from CA were trying to buy a gun with CA ID, when denied,
they then tried to get a 12 rd. magazine -- also denied due to the ban
in your once great state.

Had they not attempted to buy a gun (foolish) they would have had no trouble
buying the magazine?


The shop would not sell them a 12 rd. mag, because of the CA ban
limits them to 10 rds.(since 2000)

You do not need and ID for a magazine as it not a weapon, but an
accessory.

Right, unless your state is as screwed up as CA.
--

"Michael A. Terrell" on Mon, 30 Jul 2012
18:36:20 -0400 typed in alt.survival the following:

Han wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
news
snip
To not treat real pain properly is malpractice (my book).
To treat fake pain with real meds is malpractice too.


Most VA doctors give a damn, and try to do the right thing. It's all
the lifer government employees that screw things up. Like any other
system, they can only hire forom the pool of what's availible.

Most "bureaucrats" aren't unsympathetic, we'd really like to help.
It is because we know the rules, that we can do things like "Nope,
can't put a deck in back of your house. However, there is an
exemption for a 'wild life observation platform'." Unless you are a
dick, in which case "oh, I'm s--o-o-o-o sorry, but regulations forbid
that." Or "require", whichever is more burdensome to you.


--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

Gunner Asch on Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:39:41 -0700
typed in alt.survival the following:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:30:17 -0700, Oren wrote:


If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

I thought so. You cannot drive to Las Vegas to buy a "large-capacity"
mag and cross back into the state of California with it.


You cant? Really? Odd...folks do it every month. Really? Are you
sure its physically impossible to do? Damn!

Of course you can't. The California Magfairies make sure it never
happened. Yep - if you look closely on your magazines, the all came
from California before the ban. Says so, right on them.

A 50 cal ammo can full of Beretta 9mm mags that hold more than 10 is
impossible to get into California..yet 500,000 wetbacks have no
problem...along with a million tons of drugs....fascinating how that
works!!

Actually, the wetbacks are brining the magazines....

Are you sure????

Nope, not at all. Could be the Nevada Magfaires...

Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

Gunner Asch on Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:14 -0700
typed in alt.survival the following:

We lost 58k in the 10,000 days we were in Vietnam. Another 65k died
within 10 yrs of coming home, drunk, drugged up, car accidents, suicide
one way or another. But the rest of us..shrug...we looked forwards, not
back. There were over 3 Million who fought in that war, in one way or
another. Only 1 i 15 ever heard a round fired in anger. Yet it was most
often those other 14 who ate ****. Those of us who were the "1", were
simply too damned busy to worry about the small ****.

Those who were the 1, could "do" something about it. The fourteen
had to just hope.

pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

"Michael A. Terrell" on Mon, 30 Jul 2012
21:22:49 -0400 typed in alt.survival the following:

HeyBub wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

And of course..you may buy magazine "repair kits", which are all the
parts for a high cap magazine, which have not been assembled. They are
of course...for replacing worn parts in ones legal magazines...of
course.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ty+m agazines

A number of people will replace the various parts in their pre 99 mags
except for (1)..and then in a couple months or a year..replace it,
making the magazine legally repaired with all new parts. If the worn
parts are then assembled into a "old worn beater" magazine..they are
all original parts and pre-2000


Right. I saw an ad once (Ebay?) for the very hatchet George Washington used
to chop down the legendary cherry tree.

Part of the description read: "Since 1742 the hatchet has had the handle
replaced seven times and the head replaced twice. Other than that, it is the
original."


Stolen from some comic.

Mark Twain said something similar about an eternal lamp in a
church which supposedly had been lit by The Saint Himself. He leaned
over and lit his cigar.


--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

On 7/31/2012 10:19 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner Asch on Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:39:41 -0700
typed in alt.survival the following:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:30:17 -0700, Oren wrote:


If there were some way of proving that a magazine was manufactured prior
to 2000, then I suppose you could have a bunch of large-capacity
magazines that you acquired after that date and plausibly say you
obtained them earlier, but if you got caught with a high-cap magazine
manufactured after that date and the state could prove it, then
Counselor Gummer's advice is just going to be laughed at and you'd go to
jail.

I thought so. You cannot drive to Las Vegas to buy a "large-capacity"
mag and cross back into the state of California with it.


You cant? Really? Odd...folks do it every month. Really? Are you
sure its physically impossible to do? Damn!

Of course you can't. The California Magfairies make sure it never
happened. Yep - if you look closely on your magazines, the all came
from California before the ban. Says so, right on them.

A 50 cal ammo can full of Beretta 9mm mags that hold more than 10 is
impossible to get into California..yet 500,000 wetbacks have no
problem...along with a million tons of drugs....fascinating how that
works!!

Actually, the wetbacks are brining the magazines....

Do they roast them after brining them? My uncle cooked a brined pork
roast one time - it was excellent.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Most "bureaucrats" aren't unsympathetic, we'd really like to help.
It is because we know the rules, that we can do things like "Nope,
can't put a deck in back of your house. However, there is an
exemption for a 'wild life observation platform'." Unless you are a
dick, in which case "oh, I'm s--o-o-o-o sorry, but regulations forbid
that." Or "require", whichever is more burdensome to you.


The last time I tried to get a building permit they looked at a 50
year old map and told me the lot didn't exist, and was a half mile out
in the water. I went ahead and built my shop, and framed the letter. I
hoped code enfarcement would show up some day so I could tell them that
it was low tide, and my houseboat was stuck on a sand bar.

On 7/31/2012 9:25 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/30/2012 9:49 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 7/30/2012 10:22 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 7/30/2012 8:16 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes
low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they
have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o

No "yankees" have ever gone to AlabamDumb****istan and stayed, except
perhaps some military personnel who were posted there and didn't want to
be court-martialed for going AWOL.


My late mother was a naturalized Southerner

guffaw


It is funny, she would say "Y'alls guys". ^_^

TDD

pyotr filipivich fired this volley in
:

Those who were the 1, could "do" something about it. The fourteen
had to just hope.

Pyotr, _everyone_ could do something about not taking drugs in 'Nam.

We had an agreed-upon "deal" on our boats among the crews. Anybody
caught by their peers doing any kind of dope (including grass) was
immediately and unanimously reported with "eye witness" reports. That
was a guaranteed Court Marshal. (and yes, we watched out for personal
vendettas)

It only took two or three guys' trips to Portsmouth to clean up the whole
squadron.

Anybody who showed up for duty hung over enough to be disabled got the
same; but by Captain's Mast. The O-in-C didn't need to see it. The
crews handled it quite well, thanks.

Nobody wants to get hit in a fire fight, but especially not because the
jerk covering your back is under the influence.

LLoyd

On 7/31/2012 12:07 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:11:40 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner Asch wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Oren wrote:

LOL. I advocate a border fence between California and Nevada. Nobody
listens to me....

I want want one the Florida border, but alas...

I want one at the top of the Grapevine ..the mountain between the
California Central Valley and So Cal..the LA area.

And lots of claymores and Javelin batteries


What? No tanks? No drones? You're getting soft on us, Gunner! ;-)

Tanks? Of course you have to have tanks. And drones too. If you put a

You don't know anything about military hardware. Shut the **** up.

On 7/31/2012 12:09 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:15:33 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 7/31/2012 9:12 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:00:20 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

We've done it. You can't get much lower property taxes than AL.
Depending on
the area, it can be quite nice.

My grandparents lived there and I liked it.

Mostly forested rolling hills. It's quite pretty.

So is Rwanda. It's also a ********.

Spent a lot of time in both eh?

None in Rwanda, enough in the backward benighted south to know that
civilized people won't live there.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:17:13 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:03:39 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

Ah thank you, Sir, for excluding The South from your list of
possible future abode.

I am more than happy to leave you alone in your blissful
anti-intellectual ignorance and bigotry. Just understand this, you
knuckle-dragging cracker: you need us, but we don't need you. You are
a drag on progress and civilization, and you forever will be.

You blue belly yank. Being as smart as you think you are, please tell
us what "cracker" means and the origination of the word.

...standing by.

crickets

None reply noted.

What is a "cracker"?
--

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:30:15 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Its obvious you have a generic mind set about Californians (which sadly
is wrong) in general and you dont know me in the slightest. Shrug

Hey. Nothing personal I think California is a wonderful and beautiful
state. Plenty of fruits and nuts there.

San Diego and San Francisco had an election. San Diego got all the
lawyers.
--

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:51:29 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

My late mother was a naturalized Southerner

guffaw


It is funny, she would say "Y'alls guys". ^_^

TDD

In Indiana they say "Youse guys".
--

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:07:50 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 6:00 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:33:00 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:22 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o


I was there for 10 months in 72/73 at Ft. Rucker.

Actually, it was only eight weeks, but I'm sure it felt like 10 months.

"Alabama is a place I've always wanted to go, not very much."

My wife and I have talked a lot about relocating out of our high-tax,
increasingly dysfunctional state.

We've done it. You can't get much lower property taxes than AL. Depending on
the area, it can be quite nice.

There are several states I would move
to sight-unseen, and quite a few more that I would consider. The only
ones that have a giant red "X" over them are the states of the
Confederacy (except Virginia and North Carolina), especially the
interior states and the Gulf Coast states. Those states are permanently
in Dumb****iStan - they will always be benighted, scarcely-civilized
********s. Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us,
but probably a thumbs-down. Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina all are an automatic "no" -
********s they are, and ********s they always will be.

The above, even if the content were sane, doesn't make sense.

- "giant red "X" over them are the states of the Confederacy"
- "except Virginia and North Carolina"
- "Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us"

Um, does anyone else see a problem with this "logic"?

There's no problem with it at all. I've worked in both major business
areas of North Carolina, and they're overrun with people from outside
the south. Charlotte, Chapel Hill and Raleigh hardly feel like the
south at all. Northern Virginia - perhaps I should have been more
specific - of course is civilized because of educated people working for
the federal government. Atlanta is famous as the "new south", having
shed its connection to the Confederacy almost entirely. Austin, of
course, is a beautiful college town, and while the University of Texas
may not be Cambridge, MA, it's still a long way culturally from College
Station or any of the other crappy Texas "university" towns.

You rank right up there, on the dumb **** list, with Douggie and Nevile
Chamberlain.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:13:50 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:17:22 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:36:22 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:57:36 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Now about those magazines. Is it the law to sell magazines with ID?

The guys from CA were trying to buy a gun with CA ID, when denied,
they then tried to get a 12 rd. magazine -- also denied due to the ban
in your once great state.

Had they not attempted to buy a gun (foolish) they would have had no trouble
buying the magazine?


The shop would not sell them a 12 rd. mag, because of the CA ban
limits them to 10 rds.(since 2000)

Right, but if I walked in would they check my ID to buy a magazine? Would
they check yours?

You do not need and ID for a magazine as it not a weapon, but an
accessory.

Right, unless your state is as screwed up as CA.

Sounds like it is.

On 7/31/2012 1:42 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:07:50 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 6:00 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:33:00 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:22 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o


I was there for 10 months in 72/73 at Ft. Rucker.

Actually, it was only eight weeks, but I'm sure it felt like 10 months.

"Alabama is a place I've always wanted to go, not very much."

My wife and I have talked a lot about relocating out of our high-tax,
increasingly dysfunctional state.

We've done it. You can't get much lower property taxes than AL. Depending on
the area, it can be quite nice.

There are several states I would move
to sight-unseen, and quite a few more that I would consider. The only
ones that have a giant red "X" over them are the states of the
Confederacy (except Virginia and North Carolina), especially the
interior states and the Gulf Coast states. Those states are permanently
in Dumb****iStan - they will always be benighted, scarcely-civilized
********s. Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us,
but probably a thumbs-down. Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina all are an automatic "no" -
********s they are, and ********s they always will be.

The above, even if the content were sane, doesn't make sense.

- "giant red "X" over them are the states of the Confederacy"
- "except Virginia and North Carolina"
- "Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us"

Um, does anyone else see a problem with this "logic"?

There's no problem with it at all. I've worked in both major business
areas of North Carolina, and they're overrun with people from outside
the south. Charlotte, Chapel Hill and Raleigh hardly feel like the
south at all. Northern Virginia - perhaps I should have been more
specific - of course is civilized because of educated people working for
the federal government. Atlanta is famous as the "new south", having
shed its connection to the Confederacy almost entirely. Austin, of
course, is a beautiful college town, and while the University of Texas
may not be Cambridge, MA, it's still a long way culturally from College
Station or any of the other crappy Texas "university" towns.

You rank right up there, on the dumb **** list, with Douggie and Nevile
Chamberlain.

You didn't refute what I wrote. All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

"Michael A. Terrell" on Tue, 31 Jul 2012
13:55:25 -0400 typed in alt.survival the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Most "bureaucrats" aren't unsympathetic, we'd really like to help.
It is because we know the rules, that we can do things like "Nope,
can't put a deck in back of your house. However, there is an
exemption for a 'wild life observation platform'." Unless you are a
dick, in which case "oh, I'm s--o-o-o-o sorry, but regulations forbid
that." Or "require", whichever is more burdensome to you.


The last time I tried to get a building permit they looked at a 50
year old map and told me the lot didn't exist, and was a half mile out
in the water. I went ahead and built my shop, and framed the letter. I
hoped code enfarcement would show up some day so I could tell them that
it was low tide, and my houseboat was stuck on a sand bar.

LOL.

You and my friend Petros.
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com on Tue, 31 Jul
2012 14:04:23 -0500 typed in alt.survival the following:
pyotr filipivich fired this volley in
:

Those who were the 1, could "do" something about it. The fourteen
had to just hope.

Pyotr, _everyone_ could do something about not taking drugs in 'Nam.

True. But my point is, the guys at the pointy end, can at least
shoot back - which serves as a sort of stress relief.
The guys in the rear with the beer and the gear - couldn't shoot
back, and well, there really wasn't a "rear".

And the whole notion that Vietnam Vets all did dope all the time -
bishwah. Most of them probably just drank. B-)

We had an agreed-upon "deal" on our boats among the crews. Anybody
caught by their peers doing any kind of dope (including grass) was
immediately and unanimously reported with "eye witness" reports. That
was a guaranteed Court Marshal. (and yes, we watched out for personal
vendettas)

It only took two or three guys' trips to Portsmouth to clean up the whole
squadron.

Anybody who showed up for duty hung over enough to be disabled got the
same; but by Captain's Mast. The O-in-C didn't need to see it. The
crews handled it quite well, thanks.

Nobody wants to get hit in a fire fight, but especially not because the
jerk covering your back is under the influence.

That too.

I collected a few stories of the "No ****, there I was ..." Like
trying to get pouf of the Navy by smoking pot in the engine room.
Sitting next to The Chief. Who asks for a hit. What are you going to
do? You don't bogart it, you hand the joint to the Chief! He did
manage to get caught, and got a court marshal, but was not convicted
of possession (his stash was in the air vent - "public space" - so it
was argued that it could possibly not have been his.) Bust in rate,
assigned the laundry room, starches the underwear and goes AWOL.
Eighteen months later, he turns himself in. Navy figures they'll just
let him serve out his last four five months, and call it square. But,
as is the way of these stories - he had matured, and decided he
actually liked being in the Navy. He went to re-up. Well, thanks but
the Navy is down sizing, there is that court martial, and the extended
AWOL. Maybe next time and good luck in the civilian world.

And then there was the Colonel who got promoted not merely from
"below the zone", but from below the "below the zone". I guess they
really wanted him as Colonel. When asked, his response was "All I can
figure is I busted two aircraft and got an Article 15."
I'm pretty sure there was more to it than that. It was SAC in the
early sixties, but still ...

tschus
pyotr


LLoyd
--
pyotr filipivich
Old farts these days - not like when I was a boy! We used to
have us Real Geezers in those days! Now, they'll let anybody
with a little gray hair be an old fart!

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:46:14 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:13:50 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:17:22 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:36:22 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:57:36 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Now about those magazines. Is it the law to sell magazines with ID?

The guys from CA were trying to buy a gun with CA ID, when denied,
they then tried to get a 12 rd. magazine -- also denied due to the ban
in your once great state.

Had they not attempted to buy a gun (foolish) they would have had no trouble
buying the magazine?


The shop would not sell them a 12 rd. mag, because of the CA ban
limits them to 10 rds.(since 2000)

Right, but if I walked in would they check my ID to buy a magazine? Would
they check yours?


I thought I stated that an ID is not needed for an accessory
(magazine). Maybe if one looks, smells funny or says "dude" frequently
they may ask more probing questions.

You do not need and ID for a magazine as it not a weapon, but an
accessory.

Oh, this is where I stated an ID is not needed.

Right, unless your state is as screwed up as CA.

Sounds like it is.

sigh
--

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

You mean filled with liberal Democrats, like Austin and Atlanta?

What is a "cracker"?
--

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 1:42 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:07:50 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 6:00 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:33:00 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:22 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o


I was there for 10 months in 72/73 at Ft. Rucker.

Actually, it was only eight weeks, but I'm sure it felt like 10 months.

"Alabama is a place I've always wanted to go, not very much."

My wife and I have talked a lot about relocating out of our high-tax,
increasingly dysfunctional state.

We've done it. You can't get much lower property taxes than AL. Depending on
the area, it can be quite nice.

There are several states I would move
to sight-unseen, and quite a few more that I would consider. The only
ones that have a giant red "X" over them are the states of the
Confederacy (except Virginia and North Carolina), especially the
interior states and the Gulf Coast states. Those states are permanently
in Dumb****iStan - they will always be benighted, scarcely-civilized
********s. Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us,
but probably a thumbs-down. Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina all are an automatic "no" -
********s they are, and ********s they always will be.

The above, even if the content were sane, doesn't make sense.

- "giant red "X" over them are the states of the Confederacy"
- "except Virginia and North Carolina"
- "Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us"

Um, does anyone else see a problem with this "logic"?

There's no problem with it at all. I've worked in both major business
areas of North Carolina, and they're overrun with people from outside
the south. Charlotte, Chapel Hill and Raleigh hardly feel like the
south at all. Northern Virginia - perhaps I should have been more
specific - of course is civilized because of educated people working for
the federal government. Atlanta is famous as the "new south", having
shed its connection to the Confederacy almost entirely. Austin, of
course, is a beautiful college town, and while the University of Texas
may not be Cambridge, MA, it's still a long way culturally from College
Station or any of the other crappy Texas "university" towns.

You rank right up there, on the dumb **** list, with Douggie and Nevile
Chamberlain.

You didn't refute what I wrote. All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

There isn't any point in refuting your nonsense. Any moron who doesn't know
that Georgia and Texas were in the Confederacy is a total loss.

You're still moving up the dumb **** list but you do have competition from
Douggie and Chamberlain. Keep trying. We're all laughing.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:29:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

You mean filled with liberal Democrats, like Austin and Atlanta?

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:26:57 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:46:14 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:13:50 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:17:22 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:36:22 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:57:36 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Now about those magazines. Is it the law to sell magazines with ID?

The guys from CA were trying to buy a gun with CA ID, when denied,
they then tried to get a 12 rd. magazine -- also denied due to the ban
in your once great state.

Had they not attempted to buy a gun (foolish) they would have had no trouble
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
buying the magazine?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


The shop would not sell them a 12 rd. mag, because of the CA ban
limits them to 10 rds.(since 2000)

Right, but if I walked in would they check my ID to buy a magazine? Would
they check yours?


I thought I stated that an ID is not needed for an accessory
(magazine). Maybe if one looks, smells funny or says "dude" frequently
they may ask more probing questions.

That was my point. They already stepped in it by trying to (illegaly) buy a
gun. If they hadn't already proved that they were dicks, there wouldn't have
been any problem.

You do not need and ID for a magazine as it not a weapon, but an
accessory.

Oh, this is where I stated an ID is not needed.

Right, unless your state is as screwed up as CA.

Sounds like it is.

You totally ignored my request for clarification (see above) so I couldn't
decode what you'd written.

On 7/31/2012 3:14 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 1:42 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:07:50 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 6:00 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:33:00 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:22 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o


I was there for 10 months in 72/73 at Ft. Rucker.

Actually, it was only eight weeks, but I'm sure it felt like 10 months.

"Alabama is a place I've always wanted to go, not very much."

My wife and I have talked a lot about relocating out of our high-tax,
increasingly dysfunctional state.

We've done it. You can't get much lower property taxes than AL. Depending on
the area, it can be quite nice.

There are several states I would move
to sight-unseen, and quite a few more that I would consider. The only
ones that have a giant red "X" over them are the states of the
Confederacy (except Virginia and North Carolina), especially the
interior states and the Gulf Coast states. Those states are permanently
in Dumb****iStan - they will always be benighted, scarcely-civilized
********s. Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us,
but probably a thumbs-down. Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina all are an automatic "no" -
********s they are, and ********s they always will be.

The above, even if the content were sane, doesn't make sense.

- "giant red "X" over them are the states of the Confederacy"
- "except Virginia and North Carolina"
- "Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us"

Um, does anyone else see a problem with this "logic"?

There's no problem with it at all. I've worked in both major business
areas of North Carolina, and they're overrun with people from outside
the south. Charlotte, Chapel Hill and Raleigh hardly feel like the
south at all. Northern Virginia - perhaps I should have been more
specific - of course is civilized because of educated people working for
the federal government. Atlanta is famous as the "new south", having
shed its connection to the Confederacy almost entirely. Austin, of
course, is a beautiful college town, and while the University of Texas
may not be Cambridge, MA, it's still a long way culturally from College
Station or any of the other crappy Texas "university" towns.

You rank right up there, on the dumb **** list, with Douggie and Nevile
Chamberlain.

You didn't refute what I wrote. All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

There isn't any point in refuting your nonsense.

It isn't nonsense. It's fact.


Any moron who doesn't know
that Georgia and Texas were in the Confederacy is a total loss.

I know full well they were in the Confederacy, ****stain. I also know
that Atlanta and Austin, and the civilized parts of North Carolina, no
longer have that benighted backward quality they once had. The rest of
the ******** south still does. It's full of ignorant,
anti-intellectual, religious true-believer idiots - people who *choose*
to be stupid.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:16:17 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:29:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

You mean filled with liberal Democrats, like Austin and Atlanta?

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.

He can get a T-shirt:

http://www.luckylizard.net/images/KAW%20Tie-Dye%20closeup.gif
--

On 7/31/2012 3:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:29:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

You mean filled with liberal Democrats, like Austin and Atlanta?

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.

You see, you dumb fat ****? Even your fellow backward bigot knows that
Atlanta and Austin are not "the south" in the same sense all of
Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and South Carolina
are. They're the best parts of the south, and you dumb cousin-****ing
rednecks hate them because they're good.

On 7/31/2012 3:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:29:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

You mean filled with liberal Democrats, like Austin and Atlanta?

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.

Actually, one generally lives better in blue states, or in the bluer
parts of red states. Red states and the red areas of blue states are
like Oakland: there's no "there" there. It would be better to be
waiting tables in San Diego than to be a white-collar professional in
Birmingham.

On 7/30/2012 4:03 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Stormin Mormon wrote:

A man's got to know his limitations.


Too bad liberals don't.

You must be the resident right-tard that has the unbelievable ability to
separate everything into a right/left issue. Your voting card is
predictable and requires no thought, straight Republican! Yeah? You
don't bother to actually research the candidates, just look for the
elephant and move the lever, right?

Ignorance is bliss, you must have a grin from ear to ear - like a
retard.



Projecting again I see. I'm a registered Democrat and don't vote across
the board, nor does Mike. But, the Democrats have poor offerings. I'll
bet you check the "D" box no matter what, don't you?

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:25:10 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.

You see, you dumb fat ****? Even your fellow backward bigot knows that
Atlanta and Austin are not "the south" in the same sense all of
Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and South Carolina
are. They're the best parts of the south, and you dumb cousin-****ing
rednecks hate them because they're good.

My take is you suffer from ALPD (Airhead Liberal Political Disorder).
There is a mental diagnosis and a cure. You first have to visit a
psychiatrist and admit you are powerless.

What is a "cracker"? Oh, and what is a knuckle dragging cracker?

You throw a bunch of **** around but cannot answer my formally asked
question.

That makes you a bigot and a blue-bellied yankee. If you move to the
South, it will never be perfect again.

FOAD
--

" wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:29:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

You mean filled with liberal Democrats, like Austin and Atlanta?

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.


Sounds like he escaped from Miami.

On 7/31/2012 3:49 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:25:10 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.

You see, you dumb fat ****? Even your fellow backward bigot knows that
Atlanta and Austin are not "the south" in the same sense all of
Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and South Carolina
are. They're the best parts of the south, and you dumb cousin-****ing
rednecks hate them because they're good.

My take is you suffer from ALPD (Airhead Liberal Political Disorder).
There is a mental diagnosis and a cure. You first have to visit a
psychiatrist and admit you are powerless.

I'm not a liberal. I'm libertarian. To you knuckle-dragging crackers,
that's the same as a "liberal", but to liberals, it's a right-winger.
If I'm ****ing of leftwing idiots at the same time I **** off
knuckle-dragging crackers, I know I'm doing it right.


What is a "cracker"? Oh, and what is a knuckle dragging cracker?

Look in a mirror, mouth-breather.


You throw a bunch of **** around but cannot answer my formally asked
question.

That makes you a bigot and a blue-bellied yankee. If you move to the
South, it will never be perfect again.

The south is a ********. All except for Austin and Charlotte and
Atlanta and the research triangle. 100% of Mississippi, Alabama,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, South Carolina and Florida are
uninhabitable for civilized and educated people. You people still ****
your brothers and sisters.

Here's a serious question of family law in Alabama and Mississippi: if
a couple in those states obtain a divorce...are they still considered
brother and sister?

What's the definition of a virgin in Tennessee? A girl who can outrun
her father and brothers.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:25:10 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 3:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:29:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

You mean filled with liberal Democrats, like Austin and Atlanta?

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.

You see, you dumb fat ****?

I see what, you illiterate dumb****? Another leftist moron who needs to go
back to first grade. With a nym like Plumpton, you're calling me fat,
Georgie??

Even your fellow backward bigot knows that
Atlanta and Austin are not "the south" in the same sense all of
Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and South Carolina
are. They're the best parts of the south, and you dumb cousin-****ing
rednecks hate them because they're good.

Oh, so now Georgia and Texas are in the North. Gocha! what a moron, this
leftist turd is

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:40:37 -0700, "Warren E. Harrison"
wrote:

On 7/31/2012 3:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:29:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

You mean filled with liberal Democrats, like Austin and Atlanta?

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.

Actually, one generally lives better in blue states, or in the bluer
parts of red states. Red states and the red areas of blue states are
like Oakland: there's no "there" there. It would be better to be
waiting tables in San Diego than to be a white-collar professional in
Birmingham.

Another leftist idiot heard from...

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:53:33 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


" wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:29:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

You mean filled with liberal Democrats, like Austin and Atlanta?

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.


Sounds like he escaped from Miami.

Nah, sounds more like Boston or NYC.

On 7/31/2012 4:01 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:25:10 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 3:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:29:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

You mean filled with liberal Democrats, like Austin and Atlanta?

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.

You see, you dumb fat ****?

I see what, you illiterate dumb****? Another leftist moron who needs to go
back to first grade. With a nym like Plumpton, you're calling me fat,
Georgie??

Do you see that even your fellow backward semi-literate knuckle-dragging
cracker admits that Austin and Charlotte and Atlanta are not "the south"
as you ****wits think of it?


Even your fellow backward bigot knows that
Atlanta and Austin are not "the south" in the same sense all of
Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and South Carolina
are. They're the best parts of the south, and you dumb cousin-****ing
rednecks hate them because they're good.

Oh, so now Georgia and Texas are in the North.

Nope - not what I said. You see, the southern *mis*-education system
has ****ed over your ability to read and comprehend beyond repair.

Atlanta and Austin are geographically in the south, but not culturally
and intellectually - at least, not as much as the backward ******** you
inhabit.

Just face the facts: the south is backward, has always been backward,
and likely always will be backward. Except for a few places that have
been culturally invaded by people from elsewhere in the country, the
south is a cultural and intellectual cesspool.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:23:11 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 3:14 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 1:42 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:07:50 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 6:00 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:33:00 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:22 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o


I was there for 10 months in 72/73 at Ft. Rucker.

Actually, it was only eight weeks, but I'm sure it felt like 10 months.

"Alabama is a place I've always wanted to go, not very much."

My wife and I have talked a lot about relocating out of our high-tax,
increasingly dysfunctional state.

We've done it. You can't get much lower property taxes than AL. Depending on
the area, it can be quite nice.

There are several states I would move
to sight-unseen, and quite a few more that I would consider. The only
ones that have a giant red "X" over them are the states of the
Confederacy (except Virginia and North Carolina), especially the
interior states and the Gulf Coast states. Those states are permanently
in Dumb****iStan - they will always be benighted, scarcely-civilized
********s. Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us,
but probably a thumbs-down. Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina all are an automatic "no" -
********s they are, and ********s they always will be.

The above, even if the content were sane, doesn't make sense.

- "giant red "X" over them are the states of the Confederacy"
- "except Virginia and North Carolina"
- "Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us"

Um, does anyone else see a problem with this "logic"?

There's no problem with it at all. I've worked in both major business
areas of North Carolina, and they're overrun with people from outside
the south. Charlotte, Chapel Hill and Raleigh hardly feel like the
south at all. Northern Virginia - perhaps I should have been more
specific - of course is civilized because of educated people working for
the federal government. Atlanta is famous as the "new south", having
shed its connection to the Confederacy almost entirely. Austin, of
course, is a beautiful college town, and while the University of Texas
may not be Cambridge, MA, it's still a long way culturally from College
Station or any of the other crappy Texas "university" towns.

You rank right up there, on the dumb **** list, with Douggie and Nevile
Chamberlain.

You didn't refute what I wrote. All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

There isn't any point in refuting your nonsense.

It isn't nonsense. It's fact.

That Georgia and Texas weren't in the Confederacy? You're really showing the
quality of the schools in the sewer you grew up in.

Any moron who doesn't know
that Georgia and Texas were in the Confederacy is a total loss.

I know full well they were in the Confederacy, ****stain.

That's not what you said, until I pointed out your cluelessness, dumb****.

I also know
that Atlanta and Austin, and the civilized parts of North Carolina, no
longer have that benighted backward quality they once had. The rest of
the ******** south still does.

You want to live in a leftist sewer, why don't you stay where you are,
dumb****?

It's full of ignorant,
anti-intellectual, religious true-believer idiots - people who *choose*
to be stupid.

You really are moving up the dumb**** list. We've got a real bigot on the
line, here. OTOH, liberal/bigot, same thing.

On 7/31/2012 4:03 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:40:37 -0700, "Warren E. Harrison"
wrote:

On 7/31/2012 3:16 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:29:51 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

You mean filled with liberal Democrats, like Austin and Atlanta?

Sure, he want's to come down where it's cheap and people are left alone, then
demand all the liberal crap he has in the sewer he lives in now.

Actually, one generally lives better in blue states, or in the bluer
parts of red states. Red states and the red areas of blue states are
like Oakland: there's no "there" there. It would be better to be
waiting tables in San Diego than to be a white-collar professional in
Birmingham.

Another leftist idiot heard from...

Nope. He's right. Blue states, and the blue areas of red states, have
vastly more to offer culturally and intellectually and in terms of
amenities. We have cuisine; you have Applebee's and Max & Irma's.

On 7/31/2012 4:08 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:16:08 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 7/31/2012 12:07 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:11:40 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner Asch wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Oren wrote:

LOL. I advocate a border fence between California and Nevada. Nobody
listens to me....

I want want one the Florida border, but alas...

I want one at the top of the Grapevine ..the mountain between the
California Central Valley and So Cal..the LA area.

And lots of claymores and Javelin batteries


What? No tanks? No drones? You're getting soft on us, Gunner! ;-)

Tanks? Of course you have to have tanks. And drones too. If you put a

You don't know anything about military hardware. Shut the **** up.

plink

VBG

You are monumentally stupid. Just shut the **** up.

On 7/31/2012 4:09 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:23:11 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 3:14 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:56:59 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 1:42 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:07:50 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/31/2012 6:00 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:33:00 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:22 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 7/30/2012 8:06 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I want want one on the Florida border, but alas...

Hey now! The Redneck Riveria is pretty nice and I keep your taxes low. ;-)


I didn't say some people couldn't get a visa to visit. If they have
a sponsor and can prove they can pay for their stay. No busloads of
deported homeless from NY or NJ, though. There's an old saying about
snowbirds. They arrive in Florida with a $20 bill, and still have it
when they go back north.


We have a problem with some of those Damn Yankees here in Alabamastan,
they come here and won't go home. O_o


I was there for 10 months in 72/73 at Ft. Rucker.

Actually, it was only eight weeks, but I'm sure it felt like 10 months.

"Alabama is a place I've always wanted to go, not very much."

My wife and I have talked a lot about relocating out of our high-tax,
increasingly dysfunctional state.

We've done it. You can't get much lower property taxes than AL. Depending on
the area, it can be quite nice.

There are several states I would move
to sight-unseen, and quite a few more that I would consider. The only
ones that have a giant red "X" over them are the states of the
Confederacy (except Virginia and North Carolina), especially the
interior states and the Gulf Coast states. Those states are permanently
in Dumb****iStan - they will always be benighted, scarcely-civilized
********s. Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us,
but probably a thumbs-down. Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Mississippi, Florida and South Carolina all are an automatic "no" -
********s they are, and ********s they always will be.

The above, even if the content were sane, doesn't make sense.

- "giant red "X" over them are the states of the Confederacy"
- "except Virginia and North Carolina"
- "Atlanta, GA and Austin, TX would get a hard look from us"

Um, does anyone else see a problem with this "logic"?

There's no problem with it at all. I've worked in both major business
areas of North Carolina, and they're overrun with people from outside
the south. Charlotte, Chapel Hill and Raleigh hardly feel like the
south at all. Northern Virginia - perhaps I should have been more
specific - of course is civilized because of educated people working for
the federal government. Atlanta is famous as the "new south", having
shed its connection to the Confederacy almost entirely. Austin, of
course, is a beautiful college town, and while the University of Texas
may not be Cambridge, MA, it's still a long way culturally from College
Station or any of the other crappy Texas "university" towns.

You rank right up there, on the dumb **** list, with Douggie and Nevile
Chamberlain.

You didn't refute what I wrote. All of the places I said I would
consider are the least "southern" places in the south. The rest of the
south is permanently backward, but those places are different.

There isn't any point in refuting your nonsense.

It isn't nonsense. It's fact.

That Georgia and Texas weren't in the Confederacy?

No one said that. You see, you just can't read.


Any moron who doesn't know
that Georgia and Texas were in the Confederacy is a total loss.

I know full well they were in the Confederacy, ****stain.

That's not what you said,

I never said they weren't, ****stain. I wasn't even talking about all
of Georgia and Texas, you stupid knuckle-dragging ****witted cracker. I
was speaking only of Atlanta and Austin. I said they were less
"southern" than the ******** backwaters you and your fellow ****stain
inhabit, and I'm right: culturally and intellectually, they are not
"the south" as you ****tards like to imagine the region.

I also know
that Atlanta and Austin, and the civilized parts of North Carolina, no
longer have that benighted backward quality they once had. The rest of
the ******** south still does.

You want to live in a leftist sewer,

The blue states and the bluer parts of red states are superior places in
which to live. There's more to do, more culture, more intellectual
stimulation, more amenities - they're just better, period.


It's full of ignorant,
anti-intellectual, religious true-believer idiots - people who *choose*
to be stupid.